Ah, that's infuriating.. Tank commanders are usually such bullet magnets.
Last edited:
Three Towns (Stafford vs Drifter Man DAR)
- Thread starter Drifter Man
- Start date
K
KGBoy
Guest
Overall 32 casualties in just 4 minutes, and little to show for it! This is what defeat looks like - but if my opponent wants a total victory in this game, he will still have to earn it
A better man than me.
At this point, Stafford is probably waiting for you to either offer a ceasefire or to do one of those silly suicide attacks and then surrender.
If you don't do either, but instead go over to defence, it's possible he will be happy with just sitting on the objectives and let time run out, but he might also feel confident enough after the latest sucesses to decide to do a bit of attacking on his own.
If he decides to attack, his first goal will be to probe and try to take out your last StuGs.
By now, he will be confident you don't have any hidden tanks up your sleeve. Which means that once you lose your StuGs, he'll be able to steamroll you and gain a glorious total victory instead of a tepid tactical victory. Probably that will be a tempting idea.
If you don't do either, but instead go over to defence, it's possible he will be happy with just sitting on the objectives and let time run out, but he might also feel confident enough after the latest sucesses to decide to do a bit of attacking on his own.
If he decides to attack, his first goal will be to probe and try to take out your last StuGs.
By now, he will be confident you don't have any hidden tanks up your sleeve. Which means that once you lose your StuGs, he'll be able to steamroll you and gain a glorious total victory instead of a tepid tactical victory. Probably that will be a tempting idea.
Last edited:
K
KGBoy
Guest
DM , this has been just a wonderful DAR and I love you for it.
Has this battle been fun to watch?
From the outset in CMBNQB costing system has Axis at the disadvantage. If you win on Axis you deserve a pat on the back. Whereas winning on Allies is at best a meh. Allies have to win a Major victory whereas Axis a Tactical victory. That should be house rules for all the games in QB.
Does this sound somewhere towards logical?
We are playing an environment aimed towards a quasi reality. Part of that 'reality' appears to be embedded in the purchase cost of the materiel and its' relative availability. Axis military, at this stage of the war was, at best working towards a tactical standoff. This is what victory would look like for a German soldier.
So, in this case, Stafford's opening gambit was fine and wonderful but hardly enough to satisfy higher ups. If this were a part of a campaign it might count but this...?
There has to be more at stake for the Allies.
Forcing Stafford or better yet, knowing Stafford has to come down off Hill 36 to achieve victory would recharge the latent dynamics in the purchase cost. -These recent risks by DM or the more usual hara kiri suicide attack might be reduced.
At the very least this idea would give an equitable calculation of the costs of being Axis.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's been a great DAR and I hope it's not quite finished yet. Would be nice to see a few Fireflies swatted at least. I hate those things
@KGBoy I agree the CB pricing system leaves the German player with the short end of the stick. At least vs the Brits because of their cheap 17 pounders. Against the US, it's a bit more balanced, because while the US does have weapons that can kill Panthers and Tigers, they are more expensive and cost more rarity points.
In both cases, the German roster is a "one trick pony" because the only tank really worth buying is the Panther. Most of the German AFVs are simply not viable choices for their points cost. As demonstrated in this battle by Drifter's choice to go for StuGs.
@KGBoy I agree the CB pricing system leaves the German player with the short end of the stick. At least vs the Brits because of their cheap 17 pounders. Against the US, it's a bit more balanced, because while the US does have weapons that can kill Panthers and Tigers, they are more expensive and cost more rarity points.
In both cases, the German roster is a "one trick pony" because the only tank really worth buying is the Panther. Most of the German AFVs are simply not viable choices for their points cost. As demonstrated in this battle by Drifter's choice to go for StuGs.
Thanks. Good info. I am testing tanks - gun accuracy, spotting, I also want to test armor protection vs different guns. I need to choose what is interesting to test. This helps.
I agree, those are the options on the table now. I'll watch my opponent and if I see him digging in, I'll offer ceasefire. But there are some actions on his part indicating he wants more. A 3in mortar started shelling presumed position of my scouts near the road from Louvoy to Wynton. I see a HQ unit in Halberg embarking on a Universal Carrier. If the points outcome mattered for ladder (like in the ladder I was on years ago), there would be no question he would attack. The fact I have only taken out one tank does not bode well for me - he has lots of HE to kill my infantry in buildings. But he might just as well pocket a victory and move on to do another battle.
All in all, I hope with you that the DAR is not over yet!
If you're testing spotting, a couple of extra thing you might be interested in testing is something odd I came across a couple of days ago.
1: Does opening up help spotting if the tanks optics are destroyed?
You'd think that if the tank has lost its optics, it will be almost blind while closed up. But when opening the hatch, the tank commander should still be able to spot quite well using his eyes and binoculars.
However, I had a game where I had a PzIV(70) that had lost its optics, and when I unbuttoned it, it still failed to spot several Shermans driving around and firing about 300m in front of it. This continued for several minutes even though I kept driving the PzIV closer and closer. So it seemed that opening up the hatch didn't help spotting.
2: Does being hull down (behind crops) decrease spotting ability?
In the same game, I had some AFVs in full hull-down position, but they were unable to spot Shermans advancing towards them at long, medium and short range. When I put a Panther in semi-hulldown, it immediately spotted the Shermans. I wanted full hulldown though, so pulled it back a bit. Now it refused to spot anything.
It seemed as if the tanks had their LOS blocked by crops on the field, even though the tank turret was clearly above the level of the crops.
For me it has been fun to watch the battle!
Difficult to say. Some players asked in the forum "how I am supposed to use the British when their infantry is so weak", but I don't think infantry matters much. In most situations they are scouts and cannon fodder. Tanks and artillery do the kills. The British have an advantage of having affordable, good quality, versatile tanks - American or their own. The Americans have a harder time against Panthers as their 76mm guns are not as powerful as the 17pdr (btw the Firefly costs over 1000 rarity points, too).
I'm not sure if the rules should be changed or if it is true that Allies win most battles. It would be good to have some statistics for the ladder. One possibility I thought about is to give the German player a points advantage if he does not choose Panthers/Tigers. In any case it would be a contentious issue as both sides would need to acknowledge that there is a real disadvantage. I sure could have played this better and won with StuGs.
I could have sworn it cost about 600? (standard rarity setting).
I define spotting ability as the probability of spotting a reference target (Pz IVH) in the first spotting cycle of the game as a solid contact. Then I could measure
- Spotting ability when opened up/buttoned up
- Spotting ability when either the spotter or the target are hull down
1170 in June/July, 702 in August/September in CMBN.
I don't think so. Assuming equal player skill and equal luck, the cards are simply stacked against you if you choose StuGs, I believe. Winning would be an anomaly.
But one thing I'm wondering about is whether you could have won this game with a bit more luck and if you had done something different when you were surprised by the first airplane. If you had disregarded casualties and just rushed forward to arrive at the objective, even though it might cost you some halftracks and squads.
There's a limit to how fast the plane can attack and how much damage it can do per turn. So the price for moving forward could have been worth it.
I think you can though.. reinforcements are just units placed in the scenario editor like any other units, including position and facing, but they only appear in the game once their reinforcement time arrives.
I think I should have rushed and taken the central objective as well as Hill 36 and South Ridge. It is closer to me, so I would have a chance even against the fast Cromwells. It is a meeting engagement and that's how it is mostly played. Who takes the objectives early has the advantage of defending. In addition, the right flank on my side is almost indefensible, being a long slope down towards the enemy, with little concealment and no cover - I am worried about an attack on that side now.
I just don't like rushing to objectives and then having a brawl right there in the first few turns.
Also, I should have brought more Panzerschrecks, or made better use of those that I do have.
Good - I'll test it out. If I can place them and rotate with precision, it should work alright.
K
KGBoy
Guest
Probably of equal (if not more so) import to ones own objectives is figuring out what your opponents are. And yes Gaming Gods, let us please swat some Fireflies!
Not sure that's going to happen. Latest developments... all Stafford's tank are back to the deepest holes in the ground they can find, waiting for me to throw something in the field first.
B
Blady
Guest
Hate when that happens.
But it's one of the things I notice in a lot of games; at one point (often sooner then later) it's obvious where the game is going. The dilemma for me is always; offer cease fire or not? Offering a cease fire feels like giving up too early, or maybe spoiling the fun the other guy is still having, but also shows you have no plans anymore. That means for the other guy to not accept the cease fire it means he still has plans and thus you're forcing him to give away something, even if it is just the fat that he has a plan....
I think that if the other guy is actively advancing and winning, you should not offer a cease fire, but either fight on or, when all is lost, surrender. Cease fire should be used in case of stalemate where both sides haven't really been doing much for several turns.